Part 13

“These students may be either those whose means enable them to pursue courses of study in the splendid laboratories of University College, the Royal College of Science, the City and Guilds Institution, and other schools of equal rank, or they may be young men and women whose circumstances compel them to earn their living by daily work, and have only access to the culture and improvement offered by evening study. While the former presumably have access to the best literature of their subject in the libraries of the institutions in which they work, the latter, although, it is suggested, showing probably greater devotion and sacrifice in the pursuit of knowledge, are debarred by the hours of opening and closing from the use of the magnificent collections in the British Museum, Patent Office, and other public libraries of reference. The polytechnics, it is admitted, do make great efforts to supply the books required by their students; but it cannot be contended that at present they can compete in this respect with the other institutions named, which provide for the student who has all his day for study. It is precisely for this latter class that the public rate-supported libraries of London ought to provide, and it is a well-established fact to those who know something of the inner working of the public libraries in London, that it is one of the great sources of discontent among London’s public librarians that insufficient funds, and sometimes also unsympathetic borough council committees, prevent their doing more than is done for this class. But there are inherent difficulties which have to be taken into consideration. London is not a unit; it is twenty-eight independent units without even a semblance of federation, and it would impose an insupportable financial burden on the ratepayers if every one of the twenty-eight boroughs were to attempt to supply, through the public libraries, the books required by advanced students in science, technology, history, literature, art, and other domains of study which can be pursued in London.”

... But why should London provide twenty-eight sets of all these works? There is no probability that one student in, say, Bermondsey, and one in, say, Finsbury, will require the same volume of the Philosophical Transactions at the same time, and, therefore, it is not necessary that both Bermondsey and Finsbury, and every other library in London, should possess a set. But there is a probability that more than one student in the same borough might require the same volume at the same time; for instance, a teacher at the Battersea Polytechnic might recommend the half-dozen or so students in his advanced class in chemistry to read some classical memoir; and Battersea Public Library, to meet this demand efficiently, would require two or three sets of the Philosophical Transactions, which would be an obviously absurd arrangement. The absence of any system of co-operation between the metropolitan libraries renders it impossible for them at present to co-operate in any way in meeting this difficulty.[40] Mr. McKillop went on to show that it might be possible for the local libraries, trusting to the central collection for an adequate supply of what may be called students’ works, relatively seldom used, to work with a standard collection of popular works which would be the same in all boroughs. “When this point is reached, it might be possible to have a common catalogue for all the libraries.... The way is, in consequence, easy for a local authority which decides to establish a collection. It can procure for a very small sum the catalogue of all its collection ready made on the best lines, and all it has to do is to purchase the books, etc.”[41] Without endorsing this idea of stereotyped libraries, an idea which is obviously contrary to the vital principle that a local library, if it is truly alive, will by the predominant character of its contents show itself to be the expression of local individuality, we must admit that it opens up suggestive possibilities.

Another proposal of the Adult Education Committee lies open to more severe criticism. This was a project for assisting industries and technical students and research workers by setting up a great chain of industrial libraries forming “a technical library system for each industry,” independently of the municipal library system. Side by side with the latter, not yet, and perhaps not even then, organized as a reciprocating system, there would be erected a complex and highly expensive series of special collections, open, apparently, to members of the particular industries alone. “In the case of general libraries the unit of organization and administration is the local authority, in the case of the technical library system it should be the industry.”[42] The amount of costly and unnecessary duplication, both of contents and of machinery, in such a cumbrous scheme dumbfounds the experienced librarian, especially when he reflects that all the libraries in the kingdom could be put on a scientific basis, and all the wants of both the general public and the special industries amply satisfied, at much less the price. Such a scheme must obviously have been framed by persons having but a rudimentary idea of the library arts, or they would have thought out a much more practical and economical plan. The extravagant cost and the impracticability of the proposal have been exposed in a special Memorandum by the Library Association, representing the trained librarians of the country, who, strange to say, were not consulted before the scheme was evolved. The gist of their criticism is contained in the following paragraphs:--

“The Library Association is not prepared to admit that this policy is sound or economical. Clearly, extensive overlapping cannot be avoided, because a large number of industries require general technical libraries and not special technical libraries. For example, the motor industry is special, but a library for that industry must contain books special to many other industries, on metallurgy, chemistry, physics, and other subjects. An industrial library should comprise information, not only on the industry itself, but on subjects and industries in contact with the industry for which the library is intended. As a rule the industrial and technical student, unless he is a beginner, needs information just off the line of his special work. Hence, libraries formed round an industry will tend to become general technical libraries. Few industries are confined to one area. Birmingham is usually regarded as the centre of the hardware trade, which, however, is spread widely over the country. A technical library for an industry must have a centre and branches with all the machinery of inter-communication and exchange. Even so, the books could not be so readily accessible as by an extension of the present library service, which has developed naturally in response to the people’s demand for information. A better plan, therefore, would be the proper organization of the existing libraries of technical societies, and an extension of the present service of public libraries, the technical collections of which (so far as funds have allowed) have been selected to aid the industries of the locality. The public library service is already extensive; improvement on it is essential; but to organize another parallel service would be a regrettable waste of money in view of the great need at this time of obtaining the best technical library service at the least cost.

“The Library Association is strongly of opinion that scientific and technical information should be freely available to people who are not yet enrolled in or who are outside an industry; otherwise that industry would tend to be impervious to new ideas, except from within. They earnestly press for the efficient equipment and expansion of the existing public technical collections, and for the foundation of technical libraries, in large provincial cities, on the lines of the Patent Office Library in London.”

The all-important question remains to be discussed: If a centralizing authority is required to enable the libraries of this country to take their proper share in reconstruction and in carrying on civilized life in an intelligent and orderly way, who is to be this centralizing authority? What Government department is fit for such a charge? Unless a new one is to be created, the Board of Education obviously has sole claim. This was the unhesitating conclusion of the Adult Education Committee. The Library Association, the membership of which is made up principally of salaried officers or elected representatives of the present municipal authorities, took alarm at this proposal, and especially at the corollary that the library authority should be the local education committee. The objections are, briefly and summarily, two: That the interests of the libraries might tend to be subordinated to those of the schools, and that bureaucratic control would stifle local interest and local initiative. But, as was urged in the chapter dealing with the interaction of libraries and schools, if the Board of Education undertook this wider responsibility, it should, and doubtless would, become a board of something more than scholastic education. Libraries must not be allowed to take a second place to the schools, the work of which at an early period of life they are destined to transcend. Let the local education committee attend, as now, to the schools, which will be, and should be, its first consideration. But let another body, appointed definitely for the purpose, partly no doubt from the same personnel, but well seasoned with co-opted members representing the wider intellectual interests of each locality, be responsible for managing the public library.[43]

American librarians, who have had experience of administration of both libraries and schools by boards of education, are not in favour of vesting the control of libraries in the education authorities. “Too close an administrative connection ... has not been beneficial to the library ... it has generally been found that when the control of a public library is vested in a body created originally for another purpose it is regarded as of secondary importance and its development is retarded. It is better that the library should have its own board of trustees, and that the two institutions should co-operate in the freest manner. Such mutual aid is, of course, founded on the fact that the educational work of both school and library is carried on largely by means of books. That of the school is formal, compulsory, and limited in time; that of the library is informal, voluntary, and practically unlimited. It is greatly to the advantage of the scholar, and of those informal processes of training that are going on constantly during life whether he wills it or not, that he should form the habit of consulting and using books outside of the school. When books are thought of merely as school implements their use is naturally abandoned when school days are over.”[44]

Similar views were submitted by the Library Association to the Adult Education Committee. Part of their resolution ran as follows:--

“The aim of the library as an education institution is best expressed in the formula ‘self-development in an atmosphere of freedom,’ as contrasted with the aim of the school, which is ‘training in an atmosphere of restraint or discipline’; in the school the teacher is dominant, but the pupil strikes out his own line in the library, which supplies the written material upon which the powers awakened and trained in the school can be exercised; furthermore, the contacts of the library with organized education cease where the educational machinery terminates; but the library continues as an educational force of national importance in its contacts with the whole social, political, and intellectual life of the community....”

“In speaking to the resolution, Mr. L. Stanley Jast, formerly Secretary of the Library Association, developed the argument--“The work of the librarian is sharply contrasted with that of the teacher. The teacher deals with human material, the librarian with the written record, and only incidentally with the people who come to consult and use it. But not only is there this wide difference in the nature of the material upon which the teacher and the librarian respectively work; there is a difference of immediate aim of so basic a character that one is almost the negative of the other, and therefore are they perfectly complementary to one another.... The library and the school supplement and complement each other. And the virtue of each is that it is not the other.... The material of each is different, the aims are different, and the administrative machinery of the one has no real relation to that of the other.... The resolution has a second thesis, which is that it is after all only a portion of the library field which touches education.... We outgrow the school; we cannot outgrow the library.”[45]

“We have examined these arguments with the care to which the policy of the Library Association is entitled. The first argument, however, rests upon a sharp distinction between the library and the school which should not, in our opinion, exist. A school is a more complex and many sided institution than the argument would appear to assume, and its functions are too narrowly confined by the phrase ‘training in an atmosphere of restraint or discipline.’ The class-room is but part of a school. Other institutions--the workshop, the gymnasium, the playing field, and the library--are essential features, each of them making its peculiar contribution to that self-development which is claimed to be an end of the library. The school in fact, is a community which fulfils its end through a variety of agencies of which the class-room is one and the library another. The ideal school is one which seeks to aid self-development through the medium of ‘discipline’ on the one hand, and by providing opportunities for the pupil ‘to strike out on his own line’ on the other.

“The antithesis between the teacher and the librarian is also, in our judgment, too sharply defined. Powers are trained by their exercise, and the printed book is an integral part of the equipment of the school. If the librarian deals with the written record, it is but as a means to self-development in the scholar. In other words, the library is part of the educational fabric, just as much as the art room or the school clinic. The school and the teacher will perform their true function only in so far as they enter into the closest co-operation with the library and the librarian. The latter will fill their real place only through co-operation with the former. Both school and library will be immeasurably strengthened when the artificial line of demarcation is obliterated.

“It is sometimes argued that the libraries would lose by the process and become subject to an over-rigid systematization, to which librarians are rightly opposed. This attitude of mind appears to us to be based on a want of knowledge of the strong trend towards greater freedom and initiative within the publicly provided schools of the country. This movement, we believe, would receive a valuable stimulus from closer association with the libraries, without necessarily imposing a mechanical organization upon the libraries.

“The provision of children’s rooms in libraries, the assembling of books bearing upon the work and interests of students, library lessons and other developments and proposals will forge strong and necessary links between the school and the library; but it is difficult to see how this intimate relationship can be generally established unless there is an organic connection arising from a single policy based upon the complex needs of the pupil. Under certain circumstances the frank interchange of experience and inter-relation of interests may be possible with dual control. But it is at least open to doubt whether they will be generally and permanently attained without a common administration.

“The second argument in support of independent administration for libraries is, in the words of the resolution referred to above, that ‘the contacts of the library with organised education cease where the educational machinery terminates.’ The Education Act, 1918, provides for compulsory continuation education up to the age of 16, and ultimately 18. Further education of this character must lead to a growth of both technical and general education beyond these ages. There is certain to be an extension of technical education after the war, and there will be a growing demand for non-vocational education to be met. With the latter question we shall deal at greater length in our Final Report. A greater call than in the past will undoubtedly be made upon our educational resources, and the necessity will arise for that close co-operation between educational institutions and libraries which is admittedly desirable in the case of school pupils if the school and the library are to fulfil their functions.

“It is true that we cannot outgrow the library: but it is equally true that we cannot outgrow the school, in other words, that we cannot outgrow the need for systematic education. The whole purpose of our inquiries into adult education has been directed towards formulating recommendations based upon this truth. Our inquiries, further, justify the view that there is a growing recognition of the need for education and an increasing desire for it on the part of men and women.

“But though the public library has an important function to perform in relation to educational institutions, its activities travel beyond assistance to formal education. It exists to serve the needs of a public with varied interests. It must satisfy the requirements of the serious student; but it must also cater for that large class of people who are ‘general readers,’ and those who go to books for recreation. The unsystematic and recreative reading which the libraries have stimulated do not, however, it seems to us, provide any argument for maintaining the public libraries as an independent municipal service.”[46]

In the present writer’s opinion, the distinction drawn by Mr. Jast is a sound one, and is corroborated by the reluctance of American librarians to placing libraries under an authority primarily appointed to administer schools. But, since there remains so much in common in the aims of the two sets of institutions, if the supreme authority were entrusted with a scheme of education in the larger sense--call it culture, humanism, or personal development, since the term education smacks too much of the school and college--then it would be logical and salutary to put our public libraries under a department of that authority, making this responsible, side by side with the education department in the narrower sense, to the supreme Board--which may or may not continue to be called the Board of Education. Dread of bureaucratic control has become almost instinctive with thoughtful people. The habit of working in watertight compartments, and repressing every spontaneous activity that cannot be forced into the strait-jacket of official routine, inspires observant critics with distrust even of rural library schemes conducted on strictly official lines under education committees. To put the control of both urban and rural libraries in the preoccupied hands of those whose attention is centred in schools, discipline, and organized education, would be a blow at the freedom and elasticity of the library. After all, the problem of the young person is much the same everywhere, and education may for the most part be reduced to a system. People who have grown up and developed personality, however, will not submit to have their intellectual nutriment doled out on a system. They must have a say in managing and developing their own libraries, and in choosing the books they are to read.

The notion of a Libraries Board side by side with and independent of the Board of Education would find no support in this country. Nor are we likely to see State library commissions on the American model, though we may as well digest the lesson from the United States, where they certainly know how to manage libraries so that they bulk large in the social consciousness. Co-operation, but not subordination, must be the watchword. The department of the general Board of Education charged with supervision of the national system of libraries would contain, besides those who are educators in the widest sense of the term, representatives of those versed in the government and the actual administration of public libraries, from the British Museum and the university libraries downwards. Such a combination would be less likely than the mere education committees of to-day to negative the proposals of those who understand the needs of libraries and of the people who use them. The local committees would likewise be well-seasoned with co-opted members representing all the varied intellectual interests of each locality, and, above all, representing the actual readers, the people most concerned in each library’s well-being. Local initiative must be welcomed, not merely tolerated: it is the vital element of progress. In between would come the regional committees, charged with the maintenance of the central supplemental libraries, and with all the general activities carried on throughout each great library province. Thus, surely, the proper equilibrium between the central co-ordinating body and local volition would be safely established.

FOOTNOTES:

[27] cp. America:--“In towns where there is more than one library accessible to the public, these should reach as soon as possible some _modus vivendi_ that will prevent the useless duplication of any class of literature. This may usually be done by agreeing to specialize. For example, in Chicago such an agreement has been made by the Public Library, the John Crerar Library, and the Newberry Library. The Public Library specializes in general literature, the John Crerar in science, and the Newberry in history, economics, and so on. In pursuance of this policy, the Newberry Library has even transferred to the John Crerar its medical collection, which had reached a considerable size. Such action is evidently a long step toward the complete understanding between civic institutions that is so much to be desired; and it deserves the highest commendation.” Bostwick: _The American Public Library_, pp. 73-4. Similar specialization has been effected in the Astor, Lenox, Bar Association, Academy of Medicine, and Columbia University Libraries in New York.

[28] There are great irregularities in the distribution of these libraries; for instance, the ratepayer in Holborn has to walk on the average 540 yards to get to a library; in Camberwell he would have to go 1,030 yards; in Wandsworth 1,400; while in the huge borough of Woolwich, if it were all built up, he would have to travel about 2,400 yards. The majority of the boroughs, however, only expect their readers to walk between 500 and 1,000 yards.

If we consider the provision of libraries in proportion to the population, we find that the extreme variations are that Hampstead supplies a library for every 14,000 inhabitants, while 75,000 inhabitants in Stepney share one between them.